Monday, November 5, 2007

CNN reports Major Progress in Iraq: Why are the Anti-War Libertarians still silent?

At one point in the video CNN's top reporter in Iraq Michael Yon says:

"I'm more optimistic now than I have ever been... it's clear that this is not an anomoly, that this is a trend. I was just told at a meeting a few days ago by Sheik Omar Jaboor, who said Al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq... not only is the violence down, but the mood of the people in Iraq has changed dramatically."

Now contrast this with what we're hearing from the strident Anti-War wing of the libertarian movement. Well, actually, what we're not hearing.

Silence as of this morning over at top leftwing libertarian sites and blogs like: LewRockwell.com, Freedom Democrats, George Phillies for President, Free Market Network News (FMNN), Liberty Papers, (Tom) Knappster, Free Liberal,(Steve) Gordon Unleashed, and on all the Ron Paul sites.

The top libertarian website Reason.com is similarly silent, focusing on domestic issues. Though, notably last Spring, Reason editors commented with their typical cynical flare about how the Surge was doomed to failure.

Only Justin Raimondo's AntiWar.com has any mentions of the War in Iraq. Raimondo plays up the few recent deaths of Iraqi civilians, but curiously has no mention of recent statistics suggesting that the aggregate number of such deaths is dramatically down.

Here's a list of a few of the diehard loudmouthed Anti-War libertarians who need to be called on the carpet. These are the very individuals, recognized leaders of the libertarian movement, who for the last few months and years, have been savaging George W. Bush, criticizing the American Military, expressing extreme cynicism about the Surge, and have been saying outright like Democrat Senator Harry Reid, that "the War in Iraq is lost." They are not merely critics of the War. These are the individuals who went out of their way, to say that the War was a "dissaster" and that anyone who supported it were "NeoCons" or "Fascists."

Pro-Defense libertarians and other patriotic Americans, please contact them by phone or email, or confront them directly face to face, and ask them to fess up and apologize for being so wrong, and for creating such an embarrassment for the entire libertarian movement.

29 comments:

You are clearly rather confused about what the word "libertarian" means.

It doesn't matter if a government program is wonderful or awful -- if you support taxing people to make it possible, you're not a libertarian.

Sure, it might be great to feed hungry children, but if you propose to do it by stealing from your next door neighbor, it doesn't matter how laudable the goal might be, the ends do not justify the means. Whether you're stealing the money to feed the hungry or to buy heroin for yourself, it is still stealing.

Similarly, libertarians oppose government programs whether they are supposedly "good" (like giving medical care to the elderly) or "bad" (like kidnapping and torturing people). Whether the war in Iraq is "good" or "bad" doesn't matter -- the fact is, forcing people to pay taxes to fund "liberating" people in another country is not legitimate to a libertarian.

Now, as it happens, I don't think the nearly million Iraqi civilians who have died in this fiasco would agree with you that it is going well, but lets pretend for the moment that none had been killed, and that this was a purely good operation with only the best of results.

It still would not matter. It would still not be a war a libertarian could support. It is still funded by taking money by force from people who demonstrably do not want the war.

I'm sure you won't understand this, because, of course, you clearly don't understand libertarianism, but the same arguments you are using in favor of the war, even if they were correct about the war "going well", would be no better than the arguments used in favor of things like Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, and a thousand other things.

My bigger question is this: why do you want people to think you're a libertarian?

Wouldn't you prefer to have a term of your own, rather than muscling in on one other people reserve for an entirely different political philosophy you clearly oppose?

Oh, and if it wasn't clear, any list with Ron Paul, Walter Block, and the rest on it is a list I'd like to be on. It is a rare privilege to be counted among such immortals. Please add me to your list of "bad" people immediately -- I would feel honored to be counted among them.

However, might I respectfully note that if you're finding that most of the people who call themselves "libertarian" disagree with you, perhaps you might reconsider your definition of "libertarian". Maybe you can pick a new name for your political philosophy.

There is no inherent shame in not being a libertarian. Most of my friends aren't libertarians and they're still my friends. There is, however, shame in attempting to co-opt a name with a very specific meaning for something quite different.

What you are describing is Anarchism, MOST CERTAINLY NOT LIBERTARIANISM.

Don't you dare fucking lecture me on what is and what is not "libertarian."

I've got near 25 years of hardcore political activism on behalf of the libertarian movement buddy, both Libertarian Party and Libertarian Republicans.

I was out in 10 degree weather precisely this time last year in Anchorage, Alaska, waving a sign on a street corner for 4 hours straight, for Scott Kohlhaas, Libertarian for State Legislature, with Scott and 3 others who braved the cold.

It wasn't until the Justin Raimondo sissy-boy brigages tood over the Libertarian Party platform committee in the mid-1970s that the LP went soft on Defense. Even afterwards, there was a very active Libertarian Defense Caucus fighting to preserve the original libertarian view of fighting back against America's enemies.

Please include me, Mr. Dondero. I find your positions devoid of any theoretical or historical support. I must stop there for the time being, unless you want to openly debate somebody in Latin America on how your pseudolibertarianism hurts the cause and is the best friend of socialist leftism in my region. A true American (in the original, libertarian sense) could burn an American flag, not wrap himself in it and go policing the world. Sad...

hmm, Saddam Hussein committed multiple acts of War against the United States for a decade. Supported, funded and harbored terrorist, including the 1993 WTC terrorist. Was attempting to become a modern day Saladin, which would result in the muslim world rallying behind him.....we pass "regime change in Iraq" unamiously in 1998 as official US policy. Saddam is mentioned in the Federal Indictment against Bin Laden, issued by the CLinton Justice dept............and we should capitulate to them, in the post 9/11 world no less.

Barry Goldwater campainged in 1964 as a Vietnam hawk, who said the mistake was not going in 10 years earlier when we did Korea and advocated using NUKES against the North Vietnamese........not even Barry Goldwater could be considered a Libertarian today, by the psuedo-libertarians of the day.

Hey Metzger, tell us please just how many years you've been active in the libertarian movement?

Since the late 1980s. I realize this makes me a Johnny-Come-Lately newbie, but where I come from, one generally doesn't believe in Argumentum Ad Hominem anyway.

By the way, it appears that don't have a very clear grasp on question of anarchism versus minarchism, but please let me assure you that all libertarians oppose the initiation of force, not just the anarchocapitalist wing. It is what distinguishes libertarians from non-libertarians. The minarchists believe it is okay (or even necessary) for the state to have a monopoly on national defense and the court system, the anarchists don't, but everyone agrees it isn't okay to coerce (to use the term of art rather than the common meaning of the term).

If you believe the initiation of force is fine, and that government programs are fine if they are "for the common good" or some such, you're not necessarily a bad person, but you're not a libertarian. I realize that you have been out in "10 degree weather" etc., but generally speaking, libertarians are defined as those who oppose the initiation of force, not as those who have been out in 10 degree weather in Anchorage.

Oh, and as for "lecturing you", well, I'm not the one who decided to post on my blog that other people with long-standing credentials in the movement weren't "real libertarians". If you're willing to stop questioning if people like Ron Paul are real libertarians, I'll happily stop trying to explain the correct definition of "libertarian".

Lastly, pardon my correction, but the libertarian movement was not founded by Barry Goldwater. It would be difficult to assign a single founder to it -- certainly if one wanted to assign such a person it would have to be taken as a person from no later than the late 17th or early 18th century. A proper accounting of the origins would have to include a lot of people from 1650 to 1900, from Locke to de Molinari and many others. In the modern period, I think it would be a mistake to exclude people like Rand, Nock, etc. -- and I'll point out that as wonderful a chap as he was, Mr. Goldwater was not even at the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society.

By the way, I'm in no way anti-military. I'm anti-coercion. There is a significant difference. I realize the distinction is perhaps too subtle for you, but it is not too subtle for many of the rest of us.

Look! If there's a rat that wonders over to yours just to take a shit, then comes back over to mine, I'll kill the mother fucker myself. Or, maybe I like the fact that he shit in your house and I decide to keep him as a pet. Either way, you don't get to come in my house and blow it up just to kill that rat! You stay the fuck out of my house or you'll die. Then it starts a whole new set of problems because your friends/family then want blood.

The point I'm getting at is this: We are not over there for terrorists anymore. It's a power trip. George Bush is a PUSSY!!!

Oh, and by the way, one of the anonymous posters claims that Saddam Hussein funded the 1993 WTC attack.

There is no evidence for this so far as I'm aware. In fact, so far as I know, no one has ever found any evidence for Saddam Hussein funding or providing logistical support terrorist attacks on United States territory at any time. If you don't believe me, please read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.

Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary

http://husseinandterror.com/

google it, to find out much more. the 9/11 commission was a political document, not a work of absolute fact.

Thanks for including me on your shit list, although an objective examination of the facts probably wouldn't warrant it.

The reason the recent diminution in casualties in Iraq isn't mentioned on my blog is that I haven't been bloggin lately on anything, and the issue has been covered extensively in both the news and commentary sections of the newsletter I edit.

The war on Iraq, however, was wrong from the beginning, remains wrong now, is profoundly anti-libertarian, and cannot be justified under any rational conception of "defense." It's also a debacle.

Well Knapp, you almost got a pass from the Shit List. I was almost prepared to remove you from it, for my slight error of not checking your other two sites. I trust your statement that you've mentioned it on those sites.

But you blew it by your idiotic statement that the War is "still a debacle."

1 million Americans died in the Civil War

450,000 Americans died in WWII

58,000 died in Vietnam

3,800 died in the War in Iraq.

How can 3,800 dead be described in any manner, shape or form as a "debacle"?

One wonders how you would have described it if the early reports and warnings by the liberal media were indeed true that Saddam would kill "hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Marines if we invaded Iraq."

There appears to be confusion on several principles of Libertarianism.

I believe some are confusing the Nonaggression Axiom with the right of retaliatory use of force. The Nonaggression Axiom states: "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else. Please note that it does not forbid the retaliatory use of force, or that is, to punish those who have violated the rights of others, to rectify an injury, or even to prevent imminent injury from another person. I apologize for the length of my following post, Eric, however I feel it is important to contribute this to the conversation about the war in Iraq and its compatibility with libertarian principles.

I support the war in Iraq because I view it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic extremists/jihadists, who are independent of any nation’s government, and who wish to attack the United States. The larger war of self-defense itself is the war against Islamic extremists. This larger war of self-defense became necessary when America was attacked without provocation on the 11th of September. I believe the United States government claims a monopoly on providing for national defense/security, by claiming billions of tax dollars for this purpose, and therefore is justified in using military force in self-defense to repel foreign attacks. All libertarians believe in the fundamental right of self-defense, a micro-example of this is the absolute right to keep and maintain arms, however, good-intentioned libertarians will differ greatly on what constitutes appropriate, measured, moral, and ethical self-defense in the aftermath of an attack. Admittedly, many libertarians believe the Iraq war is a war of aggression, which violates the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism. I believe it is the result of a continued and pressing war of self-defense for the reasons I have outlined above. I believe fighting Islamic extremists abroad, who wish and declare openly to attack our sovereign territory, are included in such a war of self-defense.

In regard to Iraq, I believe the United States had just moral and legal cause to take military action against the Saddam Hussein regime. The regime constantly and continuously violated its Gulf War ceasefire by firing on U.S air patrols, patrols allowed for in the ceasefire agreement, and its repeated violations of denying access to weapons inspections. The regime was ‘permitted’ to stay in power only on the fulfillment of these and other conditions that the regime never met, or outright violated. These repeated and constant violations, therefore, made it legally, and in my belief morally, justifiable to remove the regime by means of the use of force. The war has without question been mangled, and in retrospect our blood and treasure could have been better, more wisely, and more prudently spent and shed. However, the Hussein regime was responsible for wide ranging and well-documented atrocities on its own people. It is a noble endeavor when an American soldier lays down his or her life so that an Iraqi may one day perhaps have even the slightest chance and hope of living in freedom. The war in Iraq does, therefore, have a firm grounding in libertarian foundation for all of the reasons I have composed above. This perspective is shared by several libertarian intellectuals, of whose names I can make available, if there is any question.

Lastly, on a different note, if you do not believe that the state has any natural right to compel taxation, under any circumstance, and that it is theft to tax any amount, then you are not a traditional Minarchist, but rather an Anarchist, as Eric correctly pointed out.

Once again, I apologize for the length of the post, Eric, however, I am a member of the Writers Guild and not permitted to write "articles" for the duration of the strike. I thought I needed to make my thoughts known, however.

"Read 'em and weep!" We crazy "left-wing" Libs just made history! Man, am I going to sleep well tonight.

I'm going to have to say that WE are apparently not all that silent.

You know all the "taunting" dances football players get fined for? Well, I'M DOING ALL OF THEM! to you. SO, FINE ME MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gosh, I love when military folk defend Ron Paul. Especially here. As a libertarian Republican, I am very happy to see that with every passing day, a President Paul administration becomes more realistic. This is something to celebrate, especially on a forum that calls itself "Libertarian Republican"

If you had, you would know I'm an ex-Swabby. Yup, 4 years in the Navy, 1981-85, 6 actually with Reserves, til 1987. Made it up to E-5 but got busted a couple times back down to E-3 for drunken brawls. Honorable, of course. 3 medals, including Expeditionary for 9 months in a War Zone (Iraq/Iran War). 4 years straight sea duty, including 2 Persian Gulf Tours and 1 Indian Ocean/Pacific Tour, USS Kittyhawk CV-63 Aircraft Carrier, and USS Luce DDG-38 Guided Missile Destroyer. Only saw action on two occasions on the Destroyer - from threats from Saddam.

Oh, and I'm a proud member of both the VFW and American Legion.

And, I am currently a 20-year Federal Appointee to the Selective Service Board (Houston Region).

And Dad and Brother both served on the front lines in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Brother in the First Cav out of Waco. Dad as a Commissioned Warrant Officer, Chemical Division.

Oh, Morerice! Please don't bring in the good judge from New Jersey, Andrew Napolitano, into this. I have interviewed the man several times, and while he declares himself a "rugged individualist", and on rare occassions, a "conservative libertarian", I have not heard him decry the war on terrorism as fiction, as you often bemoan and bewail. I suspect the Judge's "endorsement" of Congressman Paul is more a reflection of the Congressman's Pro-Choice stance than other issues. Although the two might be alligned on some constitutional matters.

Mahdi army called a cease fire in August Their army was starting to disintegrate due to all the areas that had been cleansed of Sunnis; Moqtada Sadr is consolidating power. Factions were forming among the Shia so he wanted to make sure he kept control and stayed as their main leader. (Yet another known despot like Saddam that should be in jail but will be a "partner for peace" and will have to be dealt with at some future time, we learn nothing from our history and are doomed to repeat these mistakes.)

Its sad, all the surge troops didn't do a damn thing, but this thug and his merry band of torturers has control and can escalate and deescalate the situation. Of course Bush will claim the surge is working, when A) violence is less during the summer (something about 140 degrees takes the fight out of anyone) B) They reset the bench marks for what constitutes Iraqi death by sectarian violence C) the neighborhoods are less diverse than before; 1 million dead, 2 million refugees outside Iraq and 2 million refugees inside Iraq and since the country had 25 million to start ..well its pretty sad, a lot of blood on our hands. There are 3 months left of the Mahdi cease fire and with Turkey ready to attack the Kurds in the north, the only stable area of Iraq, the deaths will go up. We need our troops out NOW! And I hope they take the corrupt contractors with them; the blackwaters and halliburton's are doing more harm than good.